### U.S. Department of Energy

Commercial and Industrial Pumps Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group Meeting Summary—First Meeting Forrestal Building, Washington, D.C. December 18-19, 2013

Members in Attendance Lucas Adin U.S. Department of Energy Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC Member) Robert Barbour TACO, Inc. Charles Cappelino ITT Industrial Process Greg Case Pump Design, Development and Diagnostics Gary Fernstrom California IOUs Mark Handzel Xylem Corporation Albert Huber Patterson Pump Company Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project Doug Potts American Water Charles Powers Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps

Steve Rosenstock Edison Electric Institute Louis Starr Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Greg Towsley Grundfos USA Meg Waltner Natural Resources Defense Council

Doug Brookman Facilitator, Public Solutions, Inc.

Additional Attendees Bob Asdal, Alex Bosenburg, Dan Cohen, J ohn Cymbalsky, Randy Ferman, Wayne Gordon, Sanaee Iyama, Betsy Kohl, Paul Lin, Jane Luxt on, John Masters, Mark Menzer, Callie Reis, Steve Thompson, Dan Weintraub, Ben White, John White, Sarah Widder, Alison Williams

Day 1 Facilitator Doug Brookman called the meeting to order and welcomed all present at 10:15AM.

John Cymbalsky, Appliance Standards team leader, made welcoming remarks, describing his experience to date with Negotiated Rulemaking, the potential benefits and his optimism about this rulemaking. He introduced Lucas Adin, DOE’s negotiator. He confirmed there would be a complete transcript of the meetings. He also affirmed DOE’s obligati on to conduct a rulemaking irrespective of the resu lts of the negotiation.

Then, introductions around the room—each person introduced him/herselfNext, Wayne Gordon, from the General Law Di vision, gave an operational overview. He described that Working Groups (WG) serve as a subcommittee of ASRAC, who will review the Working Group’s products. That separation provides an opportunity for WG members to fully engage representing the interests of individual companies and associ ations. He suggested that if any questions about ethics arise, members should bring them directly to John Cymbalsky and he would bring them to Wayne.

The facilitator reviewed th e Agenda and ground rules.

DOE representative Lucas Adin gave a brief pr esentation, describing the authorities under which the WG was convened and its relationship to ASRA C. The WG will deliberate, work to achieve

a consensus and submit a recommendation to AS RAC, who will consider the recommendation and make an energy conservation standard reco mmendation to DOE. He also described the

standards work undertaken to date: the fram ework analysis and th e framework meeting conducted in February 2013.

John Cymbasky joined in to answer questions about data and descri be anticipated products. In discussion on timing and scope, he confirmed th at DOE wanted to issue a NOPR by the end of 2014. The discussion on scope continued. Members described the needs and constraints on data gathering and in particular the need for “market data and preliminary duty analysis” as the basis to inform negotiations.

Dan Cohen, from the DOE General Counsel’s Offi ce followed with a brief presentation. He described DOE’s typical ‘iterative, paper- ex change’ regulatory process, where DOE and consultants do multiple rounds of analysis, pr oposals, public meetings and written comments— and where DOE receives feedback on those, revise s the analysis and creates new proposals. He commented that it was not a discussion where pa rties are engaged and working together to process content and do analysis together in the room. Continuing, he described how some products are well understood, have been regulated pr eviously and the standa rd regulatory process typically works well. He contra sted those with other products that DOE thinks might benefit from more real-time ‘give and take’ taking place in the room. He described his experience, that getting folks together in a room and discussing the details, doing analysis and sorting through the details, results in an enormous amount of data and information and frequently results in a proposal that is better informed product. So that is the idea of a negotiated rulemaking—sit down with folks in the room, iden tify the issues, go through the data and do the analysis to try to come up with a proposal. That pr oposal then, goes out for comme nt. If the WG does its work

well there should not be a lot of comment.

He continued, there are several a dditional issues related to ground rules that will be discussed. For example, members obligations to be s upportive or whether the working group will be

reconstituted to consider commen ts on its work. Mr. Cohen reit erated that the working group’s product will go back to ASRAC for re view. ASRAC meets consistently so they will be available

to conduct their review.

Allison Williams from LBNL commented on the request for market data, preliminary duty analysis and energy usage. She said the consultant team had been collecting the data andbeginning the analysis—they have a lot a data and she anticipates th at they can share a lot of it

with the WG. Some of the da ta presented in the Framework Document has been updated, for example, an estimate of shipment distribution by product type, and that will be made available. Doug Potts added that American Water will also be able to contribute da ta to the discussion.

Ground Rules: Discussion turned to the Draft Gr ound Rules, which were based on those utilized by previous Negotiated Rulemaki ng Working Groups. The draft was broadcast on the screen and, in discussion, real-time edits were made. The review started at the beginning of the document, with discussion to clarify. In disc ussion, members generally affirmed much of the

content in the document. Specific points included:

 members confirmed that alternates should be allowed to vote on behalf of members when representing members;

 asked about the status Gary Witt and Howard Richardson, both members were not in attendance;

 clarified that members, if at all possible, are expected to attend “in person”—this was an

edit to the Ground Rules

 a quorum of 2/3’s of members must be pres ent, including by remote attendance, for the

WG to conduct business—alternates do not count as substitutes for members for the purpose of establishing a quorum. The 2/3’s count applies to the original, approved member list (or, subsequently their substitutes—in any case, as they are approved by ASRAC).

 After considerable discussion on the definiti on of consensus, the members unanimously approved that a dissenting vote by three me mbers present would stop or derail a consensus. On any given proposal, the WG can have two negative votes by those present

and still achieve consensus.

 Established ‘sub groups’ of the WG would be restricted to a 15 members....this is not meant to stop participation of ‘resource persons ’ or outside experts th at may contribute to sub group’s work.

 Confirmed that sub groups are not authori zed to make decisions for the Working Group (149)

There was discussion on details of sub group opera tions and potential rule s/constraints for sub group’s work that may be needed. Some memb ers suggested that decision making and quorum rules were probably not necessary because most sub groups would have a more narrow information gathering/analysis ta sk and they would be reporting to the working group regardless. Other members thought rules/guidance would be useful. The WG arrived at an understanding that if the task assigned to sub group was comp licated, it would consider and offer necessary guidance when they commissioned the sub group. (p.181)

There was considerable discussion on the time frame to conduct the negotiation and possible end

dates. Several members advocated that the time fra me be adequate so the WG could do its work successfully and completely. This is especially true, they continued, give n the fact that the WG was also going to undertake developing/c onsidering the test procedure.Tom Eckman described that ASRAC would lik ely receive the WG consensus proposal and review/evaluate it as a whole product, then vo te up or down to accept the proposal or send the proposal back to the WG to do more work. (191)

Additional Edits to Specific Sections Continuing, there was detailed discussion on virtually every re maining element of the Draft Ground Rules. The majority of the language rema ined intact, however the members offered the following elaborations/revisions: 4. Agreement:

a. Dan Cohen commented that the second sent ence was a holdover from the transformers WG, and is not relevant for this WG, so that sentence was deleted. The rest of the paragraph, which describes the content of an expected proposal—t he term sheet content and supporting analysis—

remained intact. The review also confirmed th at DOE staff “will be responsible for translating the term sheet and analysis and fulfil ling its obligations” on these items. b. Continuing, the WG also endorsed language th at confirmed DOE’s commitment to use the negotiated consensus proposal as the basis for its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR).

c. After considerable discussion and clarificat ion, confirmed that negotiators who vote for a consensus proposal agree to not speak or offer negative comments on the proposal. d. Continuing, the language outlines DOE’s responsib ility to consider, and respond as needed to public comments, to fulfill its resp onsibility in writing the rule. e. Confirmed that no member participating in th e consensus may act or speak negatively on the final agreement. New language was added to co nfirm that members who voted negatively on the final agreement preserve the ri ght to act against the proposal. F. Similar language was inserted here to pr eserve the rights of members who have voted negatively to speak agains t the consensus proposal.

5. Facilitator: Clarified that the members can request that the facil itator be replaced

6. Meetings: a. The meetings clause was amended to reflect that the negotiations will be conducted under the authority of the Energy Policy and Cons ervation Act (EPCA), 1975 as amended.

Discussion turned to objectives and scope as a way to inform the expected duration of the negotiation, and the WG’s desire to complete the ground rules by the end of day 2. (240) One member described a sequence of questions or ne eds for the WG: establishing a test procedure and an efficiency metric. An energy effici ency (EE) advocate added “about where the products—what products are large and what pr oducts are small in terms of scale and impacts.......and that will help determine our inte rest and what ought to be covered”. Alison Williams reported that they have some market prof ile data for a certain se gment of products that may be within scope—but may not have market information for what may ultimately be considered in scope. (241) She continued that da ta is not compiled/formatted yet to be shared.

Discussion turned to the availability of data to support scope. HI’s proposal, floated at the Framework meeting in February listed five different pump groups: “flexible couple horizontal frame manage and centrifugal; flexible couple horizontal for manage centrifugal—otherwise known as end suction; end suction close couples, single-stage end suction; flexible couplevertical inline; rigid couple ve rtical inline; and, close couple ve rtical inline; pl us, inline casing diffuser pumps; and close couple submersible diffuser centrifugal four and six inch bowl diameter only” (244) In addition, one key question is the breadth or configurations included in the scope. Should the scope be confined to the hydraulic portion or include the motor or include the entire pump system—the ‘extended product’.

One member of the EE caucus descri bed their initial response the H I’s proposal presented at the Framework meeting. “Generally supported the scope: limiting to clean water and generally supportive of horsepower range, minimum flow etc”. Two categories outside HI scope we want to consider: double suction pumps and circulator pumps. Also explore extended product (251) perspective for smaller horsepower pumps—perhap s bear-shaft pumps and pumps sold combined with a motor. In discussion, a HI member though t that data has probably not been collected for the categories of pumps outside HI ’s original proposal. Anothe r member of EE caucus described his interest in fractional-power circulator pumps.

DOE general counsel Betsy Kohl described the Department’s current thinking on the definition of pumps: If a pump manufacturer pairs together a motor with th e pump (shipped together), it is the efficiency of the system that is going to have to meet the minimum standard. In discussion the system was alternately desc ribed as an integrated produc t. There was considerable discussion surrounding the implications of this po tential definition. Industry members described the complexity of some pump systems and said th ey frequently don’t have control over parts of the system. An EE advocate noted that whatever a manufacturer shipped together should be the unit required to meet the standard. The discussion turned to specific data that they would like to see to evaluate which pumps might be included in the rulemaking. That data is not available presently. Then the members returned to a fa r-ranging discussion on what pumps that might be included in the scope and data ava ilability and needs, focusing in part on circulators. This was in part, anticipating, that a preliminary understanding of the WG ’s potential scope will enable the

WG to estimate the timeline for th e negotiation. Betsy Kohl clarif ied that DOE interpreted that its scope of authority for potential coverage for pumps very broadly.

The discussion turned to meeting scheduling. Th e WG discussed the feas ibility of keeping the current schedule: on Day 1, start at 10AM and end at 6PM; on Day 2, start at 8AM and end at

3PM. A few individuals lobbied for an earlier st art on Day 1 and a later start on Day 2. Others said the existing times work well for them. For the next meeting we will keep the same times. In discussion, members genera lly approved a two-day configuration mid-week, typically in Washington, D.C. A few member s suggested that we try anot her location—one meeting on the west coast, or, at a member’s facility near O’Hare Airport, or, at a facility in San Francisco. In addition to satisfying technology requirements for a webinar and transcript , DOE indicated that the budget for travel was limited.

Members did a preliminary calendar review and iden tified possible dates to schedule six or more months of two-day meetings. One goal for Day 2 is establish a schedule of meetings that will

serve the needs of the WG for the duration of the negotiation. After closing remarks, the meeting adjourned at 6PM.Day 2 Attendance: All member present for Day 1 were also present for Day 2

The meeting was called to order at 8:06AM at DOE. Doug Brookman suggested a more specific set of goals for the day. Those were to:

 Finish/approve the ground rules—the dates ma y be the last outstanding remaining issue

 Continue discussion on the potential scope and key definitions for the negotiation

 Create a preliminary list of key data/analysis needs

 Discuss a pathway for the test procedure

 Discuss/clarify how the negotiation fits with DOE’s traditional ru lemaking procedure

 (Added later) establish a schedule

Lucas Adin described that overnight the analysis team had compiled some slides to inform the discussion. He suggested the disc ussion begin with the issue of scope with prepared slides.

Presentation and discussion c overed the following points:

 Referenced DOE’s prelimin ary definition of pumps

 The number of pumps sold and the type of driver, not the dollar value

 Suggesting not to cover the efficiency of dr iver as well as exclude other mechanical equipment

 And limit scope to clean water pumps

In discussion, members describe d their experience, that the great majority of pumps—“90 percent or more”—were driven by an electric motor. Regarding scope, a few members noted that a small percentage of motors shipped, irre spective of size, should no t disqualify them from inclusion in scope. Two members advocated for th e concept of fuel neutrality, so no one-fuel application has a competitive advantage. Industry members also clarified that the great majority of pumps shipped with a motor inte grated (with the exception of fire pumps) are electric motors.

Lucas described several possibl e rating metrics, corresponding to different configurations, ranging from bare pumps, a pump integrated with a motor and a system that integrates controls

as well. Considerable discussion ensued on various pump combinations and what should be included in scope. Industry memb ers advocated that the WG limit the scope to the European Lot 11, as in the HI original proposal (and in part to meet a pr esumed negotiation schedule of 6 months or so). Another member advocated for in cluding circulators since they are sold in large numbers, shipped with integrated motors which are not regulated, so th ere is a large potential energy savings. As stated in Day 1, a member a dvocated that circulator pumps be included in a separate rulemaking. Another me mber raised the issue of the implications of expanding the scope beyond Lot 11 and the industry not having th e available re-design capacity to comply, resulting, potentially, in small manufacturers going out of busin ess and larger manufacturers going offshore.

Discussion turned to the test procedure. An industry member commented that work was underway on the test procedure (# 40.6) and the scope for bare pumps corresponds to Lot 11. A draft of the test procedure, as it goes out for ba llot, could be provided to the WG in February. Another member asked about the test procedure’ s com position and asked if the test procedure could be modified to accommodate a pump + motor configuration. There was considerablediscussion on the complexities of different te st procedure configurations and applications, especially whether it would be possible to simply measure the electrical power that goes into the motor in an integrated pump-motor configuration.

One EE caucus member restated where she t hought there were poten tial energy savings opportunities: one was circulator pumps and, in addition, more efficient motors and finally, adding controls. One additional area for potential savings would be variable speed drives (VSDs). Continuing the member s uggested that more efficient mo tors and VSDs “would only be appropriate in a market segment where today pump manufacturers generally sell the pump with a

motor”.

Discussion continued and scoping qu estions emerged: one member restated that industry seems to have accepted Lot 11 and it does not seem as though we have the data to expand to include circulators; but DOE is developing a test procedure and that could include ci rculators. An industry member suggested that part of the problem with circulator s is that we don’t have a load profile, once again, we don’t have the data. On e member made an appeal for the DOE technical support team to do some investigation to see whet her expanding the test pr ocedure to include an integrated motor was feasible. DOE said they could do that. One industry member said that

those involved in formulati ng the test method were open to new and novel approaches.

Another industry member clarifie d that the earlier discussion surrounding motors being paired and tested as a unit was referring to ECMs ( 123). The ensuing disc ussion described the complexity of testing with motors (and potentia lly controls) that multiple possible speeds. The member went on to say that most of major manuf acturers are moving to ECMs, that the market is driving it.

The discussion turned to the issue of data and analysis needs. Members asked questions about what data DOE has: what categories of pu mp type and horsepower; data on how pumps are sold---whether its an integrated product with th e motor, or potentially shipped with a motor but not attached. Continuing, what would be the pump types and horsepower bands—unit shipment data, connected load (total kilowa tt) and whatever is available as an energy use estimate and/or duty cycle estimate. Another member requested data on the different types of drivers and the overall capacity/ annual energy use estimate (135). Another member, noting that this is probably “ a little further ahead”, said that preliminar y LCC and NIA results would be needed to start talking about standard levels. DOE added that most of the data of that type is limited to Lot 11 and a bare pump configuration. DOE also added that they would try to figure out as soon as possible which data they do not have.

Continuing with data needs, the di scussion turned to circulators, talking about different type of motors: single phase or PCS and ECM motors—and finding a way to test for them. One industry member commented that the Europeans had studied al l of this and the data is readily available.

He continued that the EU concl uded that looking at different motor types was a waste of time because, if you focus on pumps, you “can only get a litt le percentage out of it”, and the market is headed in that direction. (143) Another member said that manuf acturers, generally, could not go straight to market to obtain ECM motors. Others contributed that they were noisy and costly.Lucas Adin said he had been making a list of an ticipated data needs, which broadly included: shipment data across types of pumps we are cons idering, including circul ators, and broken down out by horsepower, pump type or co nfiguration, connected load a nd configuration as shipped. And (subsequently,) representativ e load profiles in the field.

One member asked if industry members had an ex isting performance rating system? An industry member responded that “what we did was collect the efficiency for Lot 11 Pumps. We did a survey....we aggregate the data....and we develo ped a minimum efficiency index. We were basically mimicking what they did in Europe.” (155) Member: Are the performance levels you are reporting consistent with the draft te sting standard? Industry member—yes. The

conversation turned to a detailed discussion on trimming impellers—the point being that many possible pump modifications that are ma de to suit different applications.

The conversation turned to the availability of data and what Navigant had collected. One member confirmed that the data to be presen ted would be aggregated and that all data collected/analyzed by th e consultant team would be subject NDAs.

Betsy Kohl from the DOE General Counsel’s offi ce described how DOE’s reading of the statute suggests that they could either set a performa nce requirement or a design requirement—it is either/or. And she confirmed the compliance date would be five y ears from the date DOE publishes the final standard. On preemption, unle ss there is a specific st atutory directive for a particular product, the general rules apply—tha t a state standard would not be permitted— “we’ve got a covered product here, DOE is wo rking on a standard and there is a statutory prescription before our standard becomes effec tive for state action.”(175) In further discussion on issue of preemption, Dan Cohen elaborated that pumps are a covered product, so any form of pump (including circulator pumps) is a covered product; and further, from a legal perspective it did not matter whether a pump was principally used residentially or commercially. (177)

The WG then began a discussion on a test proced ure pathway. John Cymbalsky clarified DOE’s perspective on scope, “the scope shouldn’t necessa rily be limited by the timeframe that we’ve discussed generally.....we shouldn’t be limiting scope purely on the basis of time....if we think that things should be within the scope and it wi ll take more time to analyze and to produce a good rule that will achieve energy savings that we want to pursue and we need more time to do it, then we’ll look at getting more time...” He went on to say the general timeframe discussed yesterday seemed “pretty ambitious given some of the things we have been talking about”, including the test procedure, which also needs to be drafted and publishe d as a proposed rule. He continued, that needs to happen in the timefr ame of this standards rulemaking. He further clarified that the test proce dure NOPR would probably be issued during the timeframe of these negotiations (188).

Discussion continued on preemption questions : whether swimming pool pump regulations adopted by California and other states are preem pted. DOE General Counsel said they would

have to look into it.

Discussion turned to the test pr ocedure and its implications for the duration of the negotiation. An industry member reiterated that the HI versio n may be available as early as January. Anothermember described the key role that life-cycle cost analysis would play and how multiple iterations on issues such as cost, loadings a nd duty cycle would probably be necessary, probably

discussed over several months. Another member reiterated that the WG should try to meet the goal of a proposed rule by end of 2014. The pr evious member suggested that to meet that timeline, “to be finished with a term sheet in September, the discussion of life-cycle costs and resolution of the levels has got to happen not later probably than June/July timeframe”.

There was more discussion on what would be needed to establish scope knowledgably. One member suggested the WG make it practical and consider a phase d approach, starting with Lot

11. There was more discussion on what was incl uded in Lot 11 and what DOE proposed as an preliminary scope in its February framework meeting. A member reminded everyone that the

Ground Rules enabled the WG to extend the deadlin e if necessary. DOE confirmed, that from their perspective, a bare minimum scope would be Lot 11, with a few additional pump types, as described at the Framework meeting. (208)

Lucas Adin suggested the following dates: th at negotiations (WG) would terminate on September 1; and, the WG would submit its term sheet to ASRAC on July 15—and these could be adjusted if it is necessary. He went on to suggest a possible scope: Lot 11 plus the additions referenced in the Framework meeting, which le aves open the scoping issue of bare pumps vs. pumps with motors and other integrated combina tions, and finally, also addressed, the issue of circulators. An industry member advocated for this scope and timeframe, and being open to new data and analysis that might expand the scope as it emerges. Industry members commented on the importance of accurately identifying pump types to be included—and they should be consistent with the HI listings /definitions. The consultant t eam said they had developed a

‘crosswalk’ table which reference specific HI codes and that woul d address the issues raised.

Discussion ensued on the preliminary scope proposal. A member suggested that the WG re-label Lot 11 to be something new and distinctive. An EE coalition member stated that they would still like to see the data, especially for the expanded pumps list in th e DOE framework before settling on a scope. Another member asked and DOE clarifie d that the proposal, at th is stage is for bare shaft pumps. What followed was a lot of detailed discussion on what pump types and parameters

could/would be included.

The facilitator restated the scope—characterized as a ‘preliminary minimum scope” that had emerged in discussion and there was considerab le back and forth among members about whether the description was clear enough and what was incl uded. One issue was if the proposal included/ considered an efficiency metric. Anothe r was including circulators and other pumping technologies, later when possible, included in the scope. One me mber suggested that after the meeting, DOE counsel go back to the record to make sure the WG had a clear, concise description of scope. Other members expresse d concerns about moving to define scope too rapidly. After more discussion, the facilitator called for vote. The WG had three dissenting votes and two abstentions, so the proposal was not accepted. Discussion continued on what the advantages/disadvantages of esta blishing a preliminary scope at this time were. One member proposed that the WG hold off on establishing scope until the next WG meeting, which was generally accepted by the members.The WG turned to a final review of the gr ound rules section-by-sec tion, with the following

additions/clarifications:

 Adding ‘rounding down’ to the nearest w hole person to the quorum requirement

 Confirming DOE will provide appropriate support to subgroups; subgroups are not

authorized to make decisions for the WG

 Confirmed the dates July 15 for the term sheet to be sent to ASRAC and September 1 as

the WG termination date

The facilitator asked for a vote the WG vot ed unanimously to accept the ground rules.

The final issue of the day was to consider sche duling: The WG considered a six month calendar to establish a meeting schedule. After a detail ed review, and considerable discussion, the WG established the following meeting dates:

 January 30-31

 March 4-5

 March 26-27

 April 29-30

 May 28-29

 June 18-19

 July 23-24

A few members offered to host a WG meeting and/or site visit, possibly March 3 or 6 or other meeting dates. This opportunity will be explored in the January meeting.

Several members made appreciative closing remarks, citing the tenor an d spirit of the first meeting. The WG adjourned at 3PM

Meeting summary prepared by Doug Brookman January 24, 2014